The sanitation problem:

Transcription

1 The sanitation problem: What can and should the health sector do?

2 Summary Summary recommendations: 1. Global health institutions should acknowledge and address the impact of sanitation on the global disease burden, the contribution of improved sanitation to reducing that disease burden and the potential benefits for public health outcomes. 2. International donors should prioritise support for programmes in countries with low sanitation coverage and high burden of sanitation-related disease and invest in research and evaluation to understand the relative health impacts and additive effects of different types of sanitation intervention. 3. Developing country governments should ensure that sanitation is addressed within all relevant health policies, regulations, guidelines and procedures and establish targets and indicators for monitoring improvements in sanitation related diseases. 4. Developing country governments should strengthen public health legal and regulatory frameworks to improve inter-sectoral coordination between ministries and agencies responsible for sanitation at different levels and enhance accountability for results. 5. National and sub-national health programme priorities should take account of sanitation-related disease burden and ensure that sanitation and hygiene are fully integrated within disease specific and national health programmes. Half of the people living in developing countries do not have access to even a basic toilet. 1 This presents a major risk to public health. Diseases attributable to poor sanitation currently kill more children globally than AIDS, malaria and measles put together, and diarrhoea is the single biggest killer of children in Africa. 2 Safe sanitation is widely acknowledged to be an essential foundation for better health, welfare and economic productivity, but progress in reducing the burden of sanitationrelated diseases borne by poor people in developing countries remains slow and is holding back progress on all other development outcomes. The wider problem of political and financial neglect of sanitation issues has already been well documented 3 and the 2008 International Year of Sanitation signalled a concerted effort to try and address the sanitation

3 problem. But WaterAid s experience on the ground in Africa and Asia has shown that the enduring challenge is not just how to provide infrastructure, but also how to promote uptake and use of facilities. Infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient for better health. There is a critical need to develop better integrated approaches in order to maximise the health gains associated with sanitation interventions in support of the ongoing drive to achieve Sanitation and Water for All. 4 The health sector has an important role to play in promoting sanitation. Creating demand and changing behaviours are both areas where the health sector has a strong track record and recognised comparative advantage. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding institutional roles and responsibilities for sanitation in developing countries, and the degree of health sector involvement in promoting safe sanitation varies significantly. This report draws upon recent WaterAidfunded research into the different roles played by the health sector in developing countries and makes recommendations for accelerating progress on sanitation and securing related health outcomes. The report reviews recent trends in health sector policy and programmes in developing countries, confirms the inadequate nature of existing institutional responses to the sanitation problem in these countries, and highlights the absence of strong political leadership and lack of clearly-defined institutional roles and responsibilities. It further notes that health sector planning and funding allocations frequently do not reflect the burden of disease attributable to sanitation in developing countries and that contemporary health systems are primarily focused on treatment and patient-based interventions while preventive and public health aspects tend to receive less attention. 5 In developing countries the majority of investment in sanitation is currently channelled through infrastructure ministries where it is mainly focused on providing new facilities. Meanwhile, budget allocations to health ministries for sanitation tend to be less clearly defined and allocation of health system resources for related activities is often diffuse, making it difficult to monitor results. There is relatively little research on appropriate health sector roles and responsibilities in promoting sanitation but after reviewing existing theory and practice the study focuses on four key functional deficits that characterise existing institutional responses to sanitation and health: 1. norms and regulations 2. inter-sectoral policy and coordination 3. delivery of scaleable sanitation programmes 4. collection and use of data This report explores the role of the health sector in addressing each of the functional deficits identified, drawing on examples from the four country case studies. The study concludes that improved collaboration between WASH and health sectors is key to improving sanitationrelated health outcomes. It shows that health systems have a critical role to play in promoting sanitation but that existing health sector involvement is frequently sub-optimal. It makes a series of recommendations for health sector stakeholders interested in accelerating progress on sanitation and securing related health gains in developing countries.

4 A WaterAid report, May Written by Yael Velleman and Tom Slaymaker. Acknowledgements: This policy report draws upon the findings of WaterAid-funded research conducted in collaboration with the Water Institute (WI) at the Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, during The views expressed here are those of WaterAid and do not necessarily reflect those of the Water Institute. With particular thanks to WaterAid country programme staff in Malawi, Nepal and Uganda for their support and contributions to this report. This paper should be cited as WaterAid (2011) The sanitation problem: What can and should the health sector do? A soft copy of this and all other WaterAid papers can be found at Front cover image of children in Malawi: WaterAid/Layton Thompson

5 Table of contents 1. Introduction 2 2. The critical role of sanitation in health 4 3. The inadequacy of existing institutional responses 9 4. Functional deficits and the role of the health sector in addressing them Core functional deficits in securing progress on sanitation and related health gains a Functional deficit 1: Norms and regulations b Functional deficit 2: Inter-sectoral policy and coordination c Functional deficit 3: Delivery of scalable sanitation programmes d Functional deficit 4: Collection and use of data Facilitators and barriers to health sector addressing functional deficits a Leadership b Community participation c Human resources d Financing Recommendations for health sector stakeholders International health policy and donor policy National development policy and resource allocation National health policy and sanitation programme design Other stakeholders 34 1

6 1. Introduction WaterAid s vision is of a world where everyone has access to safe water and sanitation. This vision can only be achieved by working in collaboration with others. This report is part of an ongoing programme of work which seeks to reach out beyond the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector to engage with actors and agencies from other sectors, particularly health and education, as part of a concerted joint effort to address the lack of access to WASH and the profound impact it has on health, welfare and economic growth in the world s poorest countries and communities. Box 1: Health sector or health system? The terms health sector and health system are often used interchangeably and are rarely defined. For the purposes of this paper the term health sector is used to refer to the various different actors and agencies that play a role in improving health (whether political, financial, technical or administrative), whereas the term health system is used to refer to the system for delivery of healthcare services (mostly understood as curative or palliative services). According to the World Health Organization (WHO): A well functioning health system responds in a balanced way to a population s needs and expectations by: Improving the health status of individuals, families and communities. Defending the population against what threatens its health. Protecting people against the financial consequences of ill-health. Providing equitable access to people-centred care. Making it possible for people to participate in decisions affecting their health and health system. 6 2

7 The report argues that the scale of the financial and human costs of the neglect of sanitation cannot be ignored; and that joint, cross-sector efforts that make better use of existing resources are critical to building on the gains achieved so far in improving global health. Progress on global health, in particular on child health, will require health and sanitation professionals to work together to tackle poor sanitation. This report attempts to provide some practical recommendations on how to facilitate this joint effort. The report draws on research conducted during 2010 in collaboration with the Water Institute at the Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, USA. The research team investigated the characteristics of health sector involvement in sanitation in developing countries, including governance structures, health sector roles and responsibilities, and current initiatives to link sanitation and health. Four developing countries with differing institutional arrangements for sanitation and varying degrees of sanitation coverage provided the context for more detailed case studies: Malawi, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Uganda. 7 Extensive incountry support was provided by local WaterAid staff and partners. A triangulation approach was used to gain a fuller picture of the interaction of the health sector with sanitation policies, programmes, and implementation. Data were collected using a range of methods including: a review of academic literature and country policies and programmes; expert consultation via in-person field interviews with representatives from the health and WASH sectors (including staff from national government agencies, non-governmental organisations and external support agencies); and development of an interactive online survey using a wiki approach 8 to elicit responses from stakeholders in a larger number of countries. The full report prepared by the Water Institute, on which this report draws, is available separately as a background paper. 3

8 2. The critical role of sanitation in health More than one third of the world s population does not have access to improved 9 sanitation a sanitation facility that ensures hygienic separation of human excreta from immediate human contact, 10 thereby preventing infection caused by the ingestion or contact with human faeces (the faecal-oral route of transmission). At current rates, the sanitation MDG target will not be met globally until 2049; in sub-saharan Africa, it will not be met until the 23 rd century. 11 What is sanitation? Sanitation is the collection, transport, treatment and disposal or reuse of human excreta, domestic wastewater and solid waste, and associated hygiene promotion. 12 The F-diagram (figure 1) summarises the established means by which sanitation and associated hygiene practices prevent infection. Figure 1: The F-diagram sanitation as a primary barrier between excreta and human contact 13 The effective separation of faeces from human contact through improved disposal of excreta Human Faeces Fluids Fields Flies Fingers Foods New Human Host Good hygienic practices such as hand-washing with soap after going to the toilet 1.1 billion people practise indiscriminate or open defecation. 14 This situation represents a significant and constant barrier to human and economic development, through direct impact on health, as well as broader impacts on wellbeing and poverty. Although more than 800 million people globally lack access to safe drinking water, this paper will focus specifically on sanitation; this focus is driven by the neglect of the sanitation issue, as well as the particular role of the health sector in sanitation promotion. The impact of inadequate global sanitation coverage on health is particularly significant: the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 7% of the world s deaths and 4

9 8% of the global disease burden are caused by diseases related to unsafe sanitation. 15 Unsafe sanitation is a major risk factor for diarrhoeal disease, 16 the biggest cause of death in children under the age of five in sub-saharan Africa 17 and the second leading contributor to the global disease burden (see figure 2). Further, poor hygiene practices are a major risk factor for respiratory infections, the leading contributor to the global burden of disease. 18 Lack of access to WASH is strongly associated with further diseases and infections, including intestinal nematode infections, lymphatic filariasis, trachoma and schistosomiasis, among others. 19 As shown in figure 2, diarrhoea causes more deaths in children under five years old than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and measles combined. 20 The impacts of WASH on the world s disease burden were critically reviewed by Ustin et al in The review noted that poor WASH causes an estimated 88% of cases of diarrhoea worldwide, and although annual child mortality has decreased since the report was released in 2008, Ustin and colleagues showed that 28% of child deaths were due to unsafe WASH. Further, an estimated 50% of childhood malnutrition was associated with repeated diarrhoea or intestinal nematode-related diseases. Children in developing countries suffer disproportionately, with models indicating that over 20% of global mortality and disease burden of children 0-14 years old are due to unsafe WASH. 23 In a recent review of survey data from 172 countries, results showed a robust association between access to sanitation technologies and reduced child mortality and morbidity. Sanitation access lowered the odds of children suffering from diarrhoea by 7-17%, and reduced mortality for children under five by 5-20%. Figure 3 shows cross-tabulation of diarrhoea and child mortality rates with sanitation technology level. It demonstrates that child morbidity and mortality are substantially lower for children with access to advanced sanitation technologies. 24 Figure 2: Global causes of child deaths 21 Other Non-Communicable Diseases, 4% Other Infections, 9% Pneumonia 14% 4% Tetanus, 1% Congenital Abnormalities, 3% Other, 5% Meningitis, 2% AIDS, 2% Pertussis, 2% Malaria, 8% Neonatal deaths, 41% Sepsis, 6% Birth Asphyxia, 9% Injury, 3% Measles, 1% 14% 1% Preterm Birth Complications, 12% Diarrhoea 5

10 Figure 3: Correlation of sanitation access with diarrhoea and child mortality Open Latrine Flush Open Latrine Flush diarrhoea child mortality This situation is reflected in the burden of disease in the case study countries: table 1 provides an overview of the estimated prevalence of sanitationrelated infections in the case study countries. In 2004 (the latest year for which comparative data are available), diarrhoeal disease caused an estimated 6 9% of the deaths and 6 8% of the disease burden in three of the four countries studied: Malawi, Nepal and Uganda. In contrast, diarrhoea caused less than 1% of the deaths and disease burden in Sri Lanka. Other diseases related to unsafe sanitation such as intestinal nematode infections, malnutrition, trachoma, schistosomiasis and lymphatic filariasis, were estimated to have caused several thousand deaths and significant disease burden each year in the case study countries. Malnutrition was estimated to have Table 1: Summary statistics on deaths and disability from WASH-related diseases in Malawi Nepal Sri Lanka Uganda World Population 12,895,000 26,554,000 19,040,000 28,028,000 6,436,826,000 Deaths DALYs a Deaths DALYs Deaths DALYs Deaths DALYs Deaths DALYs Diarrhoeal diseases (% of total deaths or DALYs) Intestinal nematode infections 20,700 (9%) 674,000 (8%) 15,800 (6%) 523,000 (6%) 900 (<1%) 41,000 (<1%) 30,600 (7%) 1,035,000 (7%) 2,163,283 (4%) 72,776,516 (5%) 0 1, , , ,000 6,481 4,012,666 Malnutrition b 3, ,000 2, , ,000 2, , ,562 17,461,607 Trachoma 0 5, , , ,334,414 Schistosomiasis 1,300 5, ,700 63,000 41,087 1,707,144 Lymphatic filariasis 0 5, , , , ,940,641 Total country deaths/dalys 25,700 for WaSH-related diseases (11%) (% of total deaths/dalys) Total country deaths/dalys due to all diseases for 2004 a Disability-adjusted life-year b Protein-energy malnutrition only 903,000 (12%) 17,900 (7%) 835,000 (11%) 1,000 (<1%) 98,000 (2%) 34,800 (8%) 1,538,000 (11%) 2,461,811 (4%) 103,232,988 (7%) 227,100 7,575, ,900 7,837, ,400 4,469, ,800 14,145,000 58,771,791 1,523,258,879 6

11 caused up to 23% (Malawi) of the WASH-related disease burden. The total estimated WASH-related disease burden differs significantly between Malawi (12%), Nepal (11%) and Uganda (11%) on the one hand, and Sri Lanka (2%) on the other. Further, the total death rate from WASH-related diseases also differs significantly between Malawi (11%), Nepal (7%), Uganda (8%), and Sri Lanka (<1%). The impact of WASH on health in the case study countries is more apparent when examining data on child mortality: 27 in Malawi, diarrhoea alone is responsible for 11% of child deaths; in Nepal, it causes 14% of child deaths and in Uganda 16%, compared with 3% in Sri Lanka. 28 Figure 4 compares changes in sanitation coverage from 1990 to 2008 for the case study countries as well as globally. The sanitation ladder format used shows the rate of use for each sanitation type: open defecation (no use of sanitation facilities); unimproved sanitation (does not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact 30 ); shared (improved facility that is shared among two or more households 31 ); and improved sanitation (ensures hygienic Box 2: Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) According to WHO, One DALY can be thought of as one lost year of healthy life. The sum of these DALYs across the population, or the burden of disease, can be thought of as a measurement of the gap between current health status and an ideal health situation where the entire population lives to an advanced age, free of disease and disability. DALYs for a disease or health condition are calculated as the sum of the Years of Life Lost (YLL) due to premature mortality in the population and the Years Lost due to Disability (YLD) for incident cases of the health condition. 29 separation of human excreta from immediate human contact). The highest open defecation rate is in Nepal; in contrast, less than 1% of Sri Lanka s population practices open defecation. The rate for improved sanitation coverage varies widely: 30% in Nepal, 48% in Uganda and 56% in Malawi, compared to 91% in Sri Lanka. 32 Figure 4: 2010 Sanitation coverage in the case study countries and globally % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Malawi Nepal Sri Lanka Uganda World Open Defecation Unimproved Shared Improved % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 7

12 The tremendous impact of sanitation on health results in significant economic returns on investment in sanitation, for individuals as well as national economies. Evans et al 34 determine that such returns include direct healthcare savings by both health agencies and individuals, as well as indirect benefits such as productive days gained per year (for persons years of age); increased school attendance for children; time savings (working days gained) resulting from more convenient access to services; and a high value of deaths averted (based on future earnings). The study further showed that achieving the water and sanitation Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 35 could yield substantial economic benefits, ranging from US$3-34 per US$1 invested, depending on the region. There are also significant benefits for health systems and budgetary resources; according to UNDP, at any given time half of the hospital beds in developing countries are occupied by patients suffering from sanitation- and water-related diseases, 36 representing a tremendous burden for already overstretched health systems. It also estimates that universal access to even the most basic water and sanitation facilities would reduce the financial burden on health systems in developing countries by about US$1.6 billion annually and US$610 million in Sub-Saharan Africa, which represents about 7% of the region s health budget. 37 In 2008, the World Bank s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) conducted an economic impact analysis of sanitation in five south-east Asian countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao People s Democratic Republic, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The research estimated that these countries lose an estimated US$9 billion (2005 dollars) a year 2% of their combined GDP because of poor sanitation. 38 A similar study in India showed that inadequate sanitation cost the economy US$53.8 billion annually in lost productivity, healthcare provision and other losses - equivalent to 6.4% of GDP in The data above provides compelling evidence on the benefits of sanitation investment and the scale of the financial and above all human costs of not investing cannot be ignored by any sector. In a time of financial crises and shrinking domestic and aid financial flows, joint efforts that make better use of existing resources are not only sensible but critical to building on the gains achieved so far in improving global health. Clearly, if real improvement is to be made in population health in developing countries, especially on child mortality where performance has been particularly poor, then health and sanitation professionals need to work in concert to tackle poor sanitation as a major cause of ill health. 8

13 3. The inadequacy of existing institutional responses The need for joining health and engineering expertise is self-evident, and has led to the introduction of public health acts and urban sewerage systems in rich countries. This potential remains largely unrealised in developing countries. While health professionals frequently acknowledge sanitation as a vital precondition for acceptable standards of public health, 40 interviews conducted with senior health professionals for this and other studies 41 show that they rarely consider sanitation to be within their own scope of responsibility; rather, it is someone else s business. 42 This is reinforced by the fact that sanitation is generally weakly integrated within increasingly curative and palliative health systems, at the expense of preventive approaches; in some cases, sanitation is not even considered to be part of the health sector s policy mandate. On the other hand, interviews with frontline health professionals show that although promoting safe sanitation is rarely a core component of health programmes by design, the scale and severity of the sanitation problem on the ground is such that they are often compelled to intervene in an ad hoc manner using available and limited resources. Despite the fundamental importance of sanitation to human health and other development outcomes, sanitation is often a low priority in national development agendas, obscured by the more politically attractive focus on safe drinking water. For example, sanitation was initially omitted from the initial list of MDG Targets, only added in Recently, the 63 rd World Health Assembly s report on the monitoring of the MDGs, and the resulting resolution, failed to acknowledge that the sanitation aspect of MDG Target 7c will not be met thereby failing to acknowledge its importance for the achievement of the health MDGs. 43 This lack of global prioritisation is mirrored in national policies and priorities, with the bulk of WASH financing allocated to water infrastructure, and environmental health programmes suffering from lack of funding and prioritisation the 2009 World Bank Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic Report found average annual public spending on sanitation to be no more than 0.22% of GDP, of which 0.2% was recurrent expenditure and only 0.02% represented new investment. As noted earlier, progress on access to sanitation remains painfully slow. Given the compelling evidence provided above on the links between sanitation and health, it is unsurprising that progress on critical health aspects, in particular child health, has been equally slow. 44 The effect of slow progress on infrastructure coverage is exacerbated by the design and delivery of sanitation 9

14 programmes; in addition to low levels of funding, sanitation programmes are also characterised by short-term project cycles that lead to a focus on construction of new infrastructure without due consideration of infrastructure sustainability and use. 45 Inadequate attention to creating demand for sanitation and changing behaviour means that potential health gains are not realised. Decision making on sanitation policy tends to be conducted at a central government level, while WASH departments at lower levels of government are frequently understaffed and underresourced without the necessary community-level reach on a regular and consistent basis outside the project cycle. Such community-level reach is essential for enabling demand for sanitation, adoption of sound hygiene practices, and generating capacities for constructing and maintaining sanitation facilities. This community-level reach and ability to drive up demand for services and related behaviour change is one crucial area where the health sector can help deliver progress on sanitation and associated health benefits. This difference in reach between the health and WASH sectors is depicted in figure 5. Curative patient treatment is just one aspect of health systems, although it is the most publicly visible one, and is therefore prioritised both politically and financially. But another key role is the promotion of changes in behaviour and lifestyle to improve health and prevent disease. Such behaviour change can include the generation of demand or take-up for specific services (eg. vaccination) and products (eg. bed nets). The fact that the health sector has engaged in such activities for centuries, and has developed tried and Figure 5: Comparative reach of health and WASH sectors Health Health Surveillance Assistants/ Health Promoters Community Health Workers Central Government Local Government District Authorities Community Household WASH Project Cycle tested approaches for doing so, places it in a unique position of expertise. With health professionals (doctors, nurses, health promoters) located even at remote rural locations, the sector also has incomparable reach into and influence over the population it serves. Health professionals, especially doctors, wield considerable authority, and command respect in many societies worldwide. As one interviewee in Nepal put it, people listen to doctors more than they listen to engineers. The leadership of health professionals has been demonstrated globally in large-scale efforts and programmes for prevention and control of HIV/AIDS and non-communicable diseases, both associated with lifestyle choices and requiring strategies that emphasise behaviour change. The expertise for changing behaviour and promoting uptake of services and products, as well as service scope and reach are lacking in the institutional structure of the WASH sector, which remains project-driven and heavily focused 10

15 on engineering and infrastructure aspects 46. The behavioural ( software ) aspects of sanitation must be addressed systematically if increases in sanitation coverage are to take place and result in better health outcomes. Box 3 provides a discussion on sanitation and hygiene promotion. All health sector stakeholders interviewed agreed that the existing institutional responses to sanitation are inadequate given the burden of disease attributable to poor sanitation experienced in developing countries. But what precisely can and should the health sector do about the sanitation problem? Box 3: Sanitation and hygiene education or promotion? The terms education and promotion are often used interchangeably, but are in fact two very different approaches. According to Curtis, 47 the need for a promotion approach is rooted in the fact that getting people to change the habits of a lifetime is difficult, takes time and requires resources and skill. With regards the promotion of hand-washing with soap, while past approaches utilised hygiene education (teaching why hygiene practices such as hand-washing are necessary, and how to practice them) to affect behaviour change, it is now understood that knowledge about germs is insufficient to change behaviour, due to time or financial costs as well as social attitudes to hand-washing. Unlike hygiene education, hygiene promotion builds on the understanding of community attitudes, knowledge, practices and desires. Its reliance on participation and appropriateness provides better chances for sustained behaviour change, as well as reduced reliance on large-scale education campaigns. Similar lessons have been learnt regarding sanitation promotion; Jenkins and Cairncross have documented the reasons leading to construction and use of latrines at the household level, noting that household adoption of sanitation practices is often associated with comfort, prestige and safety as much as with health considerations. 48 Successful sanitation promotion approaches must consider these motivations in order to ensure sustainable impact. 11

16 4. Functional deficits and the role of the health sector in addressing them 4.1 Core functional deficits in securing progress on sanitation and related health gains Little research has been undertaken on the involvement of the health sector in decreasing the disease burden caused by poor sanitation. 49 Rehfuess, Bruce, and Bartram 50 assert six specific health sector functions in relation to environmental health issues such as poor sanitation. Drawing on this and other literature, the WaterAid research presented in this paper focused on four broad functional deficits which typically constrain efforts to accelerate progress on sanitation and secure related health gains: 1. Norms and regulations. 2. Inter-sectoral policy and coordination. 3. Delivery of scaleable sanitation programmes. 4. Collection and use of data. These four functional deficits are used here as a framework for examining existing institutional arrangements for sanitation in developing countries and identifying potential roles for the health sector, both within its own purview and in partnership with other sectors, 52 in tackling these deficits. Table 2: Health sector functions and roles 51 Function 1. Norms and regulations Function 2: Inter-sectoral policy and coordination Function 3: Health facilities Function 4: Disease-specific and integrated programmes Function 5: Outbreaks Function 6: Impacts, threats, and opportunities Health sector roles Develop health-protecting standards and regulations appropriate to the country s social, economic and environmental circumstances. Monitor implementation and contribution to population health. Build and maintain expertise to track and influence major policies that impact health. Employ formal mechanisms for health impact assessments. Establish effective multi-disciplinary collaboration. Set standards for healthcare facilities. Budget for structural improvements and capacity-building to encourage staff behavioural changes. Enforce compliance through an independent oversight function. Integrate environmental determinants (eg. safe sanitation) into health professional training curricula. Incorporate environmental health actions into health programmes. Work with partners to raise awareness. Maintain expertise to advise on and conduct outbreak investigations. Test, implement and revise procedures in cooperation with other actors. Update regulations and policies accordingly. Seek evidence for causal associations between environmental factors (eg. absence of sanitation) and health. Assess potential values and harms of technology innovation and policy development. 12

17 4.1.a Functional deficit 1: Norms and regulations Policy and supporting legislation is essential to provide a clear vision and to establish basic principles and objectives to guide sanitary improvements. In several of the countries reviewed there exists some sort of historic public health legislation that considers health risks associated with poor sanitation. For example, Sri Lanka developed the first public health-orientated legislation in the 19th century when the Public Health and Ordinance and Small Towns Sanitary Ordinance of 1892 provided a legal basis to enact local sanitation requirements. Uganda and Malawi created public health legislation around the time they gained independence from Britain. Uganda s Public Health act, enacted in 1964 and updated in 2002, requires sanitation in all households. Malawi enacted a Public Health Act in 1948 which regulates sewerage and infectious disease prevention but its updated National Health Act and Policy 2010 awaits approval. Nepal is the only country of the four case studies that does not have a public health act. Very few countries have an explicit national sanitation policy, although some have drafted policies which have not been officially agreed and launched, and are therefore yet to be translated into action. However where such policies do exist, they often lack traction at programme level, and do not use health outcomes as success indicators. Health policies on the other hand tend to focus on service delivery aspects, with less emphasis, and consequently less human and financial resources dedicated to preventive measures, including sanitation. Health sector roles in promoting sanitation include supporting the development of norms and regulations that will improve health and encourage the definition and adoption of safe sanitation practices, and establishing mechanisms to enable periodic review and updating in response to emerging challenges. While sanitation technology is still being developed, the input of the health sector is crucial to ensure that adopted technology meets the required health standards. In Sri Lanka, for example, the health sector was actively involved in the development of guidelines for latrine construction and safe disposal of excreta, which has contributed to significant improvements in the general standard of sanitation facilities in recent years. Development of norms and regulations is also closely linked to education and awareness-raising, which are critical factors in promoting behaviour change and in generating demand for sanitation services and infrastructure. Public information campaigns run by the health ministry in Sri Lanka are considered to have played a key role in stimulating demand among communities for improved sanitation facilities. An obvious opportunity for the health sector to promote behaviour change (and ultimately better policy and programming) starts with safe sanitation within healthcare facilities. Clean and well-maintained facilities provide a model to users of healthy practices that can be implemented in homes, schools, and other settings as well as reducing the risk of infection within healthcare facilities. However 13

18 facilities observed in the case study countries suffer from extremely poor maintenance and, too often, a complete absence of sanitation facilities. The availability of functioning sanitation in Nepal s health facilities is severely inadequate. Hospital waste management and general attention to the physical functioning of government hospitals and clinics is slowly improving as part of the attention given to these aspects in the health sector-wide approach (SWAp) and the technical assistance provided by WHO (with the assistance of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI)). In Uganda, information obtained from studies, interviews and visits to health facilities indicates poor sanitation conditions in many healthcare facilities. In Sri Lanka, the government has not issued specific guidelines for hospital planning, including sewage system design, and there are concerns that established government and Ministry of Health (MoH) guidelines have not been closely followed by contractors involved in recently-constructed new hospital buildings. With appropriate regulations officially in place, health decision makers can ensure that health facilities are adequately equipped with functioning sanitation facilities. They can also require safe sanitation practices by staff and ensure compliance through regular instruction and monitoring. Health sector professionals are well-placed to lead by example and to demonstrate appropriate practices for the thousands of patients they treat annually, as well as opportunistic promotion of hygiene messages through posters, talks with patients in waiting rooms, and individual conversations with patients (either during routine visits such as for child vaccination or for acute visits due to WASH-related infections). Monitoring and enforcement remains a key challenge in the countries studied. Sri Lanka has been more successful than most in managing to retain an active network of public health inspectors that traditionally combined promotion and inspection activities to generate better sanitation-related behaviour in the population. There are examples, such as in Uganda, of the enforcement of sanitation practices through other means, including the penalisation for non-compliance with sanitation standards through fines or prison sentences, but there are concerns that such approaches may be less effective in generating behaviour change that translates into health gains. While regulations are crucial for resolving conflicts, for example between tenants and their non-complying landlords, the actual hygienic and effective use of sanitation facilities is better addressed through community-level outreach a speciality of the health sector. 14

19 Findings: Clear policy, legislation and minimum standards are an important foundation for securing potential health gains from WASH. Some countries have public health legislation in place but very few have explicit policies and strategies for addressing sanitation. Ministries of Health and health authorities often play a minimal role in sanitation policy setting and programming, whether led by or included within the Ministry of Health s environmental health division. Where sanitation policies exist they are generally approached from an engineering (supply-side) perspective, which does not recognise the public health implications of sanitation (and consequently, does not use behaviour change or health outcomes as indicators of a well-functioning sanitation infrastructure). Many developing countries lack commonly agreed minimum standards for sanitation (eg. in schools and clinics). Concepts and definitions of what constitutes safe or improved sanitation are still evolving (eg. the sanitation ladder ), and require significant inputs from public health professionals (beyond technology). When sanitation enforcement mechanisms are in place, such as housing regulations and bylaws, they are often constrained due to minimal funding and inadequate human resources. Formal sanctions alone are unlikely to result in health gains unless coupled with efforts to promote safe sanitation and improved hygiene practices. No examples were found for the purpose of this study of regulations or guidelines for patient safety and infection control measures, which relate to safe sanitation. 4.1.b Functional deficit 2: Inter-sectoral policy and coordination Securing progress on sanitation and associated health gains requires concerted action across a diverse range of actors. A number of sectors, including health, education, environment, industry, transport and infrastructure, address or impact on various aspects of sanitation on a regular basis. Crosssectoral action provides a financially prudent and more sustainable means to improve population health and increase investment by other sectors. This requires leadership, including commitment from top officials and engagement at all levels. Such leadership relies on health ministries moving beyond the mere management of health systems to assuming a stewardship role for promoting and safeguarding acceptable standards of public health, and asserting the authority associated with this role over the activities of other sectors. One way of breaking down the institutional silos that hamper inter-sectoral cooperation is the establishment of joint financing arrangements. In the past few years, there has been a shift in the way in which external donor support is delivered. While SWAps have, over 15

20 the years, been accompanied by financing arrangements such as basket funds (jointly managed by SWAp partner institutions), there has been a recent growth in earmarking funds through budget support. Such financing arrangements can improve harmonisation between actors and alignment with government financial management systems, as well as encourage adoption of commonly agreed sector performance indicators. However, they can also reinforce sector silos by increasing the competition for resources (for example, health ministries may be reluctant to share budget resources with institutions outside the sector, or to spend on interventions deemed to be outside the sector s remit). Certain efforts have been made in the case study countries to break down silos, such as involvement of water and sanitation officials in health planning and budgeting processes in Nepal, and similar efforts in Malawi but these remain largely ad hoc and have not been effectively institutionalised. In Uganda, a separate sanitation budget line has been established in order to address the financial neglect of sanitation as well as to enable monitoring of sanitation spending; however, at the time of writing of this report, the budget line has not yet been furnished with funds, nor has there been an agreement between the three responsible ministries (Ministry of Water and Environment (MoWE), Ministry of Health (MoH) and Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES)) on how these funds will be managed. While there has been an increase in the number of programmes requiring inputs across a number of different sectors (eg. nutrition, child and maternal health), no examples were found of joint reporting by water and health ministries on sanitation-related health outcomes. Examples of mechanisms for intersectoral policy and coordination on sanitation were identified in all the countries studied at both national and district levels. These can take the shape of a SWAp led by the water or health ministry, as well as that of working groups set up to address specific issues such as sanitation. However, with the exception of Malawi, health sector participation in intersectoral mechanisms led by the water and sanitation infrastructure sector tends to be sporadic or crisis-driven (for example, following a disease outbreak). In addition, participation is usually undertaken at the junior staff level and does not match the level of seniority of water and sanitation institution attendees. At a district level, coordination structures may suffer from lack of financing, under-staffing and low capacity, lack of decisionmaking autonomy and poor links with national level institutions and intersectoral mechanisms. In Uganda, at the national level, the National Sanitation Working Group (NSWG) has the mandate of operationalising the sanitation Memorandum of Understanding signed by the MoH, MoWE and MoES, integrating sanitation and hygiene promotion in sector operations, and improving cross-sectoral coordination. The NSWG is chaired by the World Bank WSP, and comprises of government 16

21 ministries (MoWE Directorate for Water Development, MoH Environmental Health Division, MoES), development partners (UNICEF, GIZ (Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit)) and NGOs (WaterAid in Uganda, Plan International, UWASNET, AMREF, Netwas and Water for People). At the district level, coordination is undertaken through the District Water and Sanitation Coordination Committees (DWSCCs), who bring together administrative and political leaders, technical officers, and NGO and community-based organisaiton representatives to oversee the implementation of water supply and sanitation programmes and strengthen collaboration and coordination with other sectors and actors at the district level. The DWSCCs have real potential for local-level collaboration but their effectiveness may be hampered by the substantial increase in the number of districts in the country, which is yet to be matched by adequate local government capacity. The Improved Sanitation and Hygiene (ISH) promotion 10-year financing strategy for Uganda, which defines the pillars for improved sanitation and hygiene (generate demand, supply sanitation, and develop an enabling framework to support and facilitate accelerated scaling up), has yet to receive official governmental support and funding remains fragmented, resulting in smallscale, uncoordinated implementation. Within the health sector, the Division of Health Promotion and Education (HPE) at the MoH leads the implementation of HPE programmes and works with other agencies to review relevant standards and regulations. At the district level, the District Director of Household Services coordinates planning, managing, and monitoring of information, education and communication activities and works with all agencies including the district information office. At health centres, HPE activities are carried out by available health professionals and village health teams, based on need and prevalent health problems. However, coordination and collaboration between HPE and the DWSCCs and NSWG in responding to sanitation-related health problems currently remains limited. Nepal does not have a Public Health Act to allocate sanitation and environmental health tasks to specific actors. This is considered an important obstacle to engaging the district-based health staff in integrating their activities with other stakeholders in environmental health, exacerbated by lack of clarity regarding the responsibilities of the District Public Health Officers and the Public Health Officer. Health and sanitation stakeholders interviewed indicated lack of interaction across sectors and programmes, and a narrow sectoral approach applied by professionals in both sectors, and within sectors, with vertical approaches (see box 4 overleaf) leaving little scope for interaction between subprograms, let alone with other sectors. One professional interviewed noted that without official guidance to ensure collaboration, it tends to be an exception rather than the rule. The recent Nepal Health Sector Support Programme (NHSSP-II) may present an opportunity to develop a public health act and/or a WASH strategy with firm and formalised links with health institutions. 17

22 Box 4: Water, sanitation and hygiene within the second Nepal Health Sector Support Programme (NHSSP II) Efforts are ongoing to ensure that WASH issues are firmly embedded within the NHSSP II: The Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) has assigned a focal point to coordinate with the WASH sector In 2010, Global Handwashing Day was celebrated nationally, bringing together the MoHP and the Ministries of Physical Planning and Works, of Education, of Local Development, WaterAid and UNICEF. MoHP has formed a Water Quality Surveillance Thematic Group to work on capacity assessment and developing a Water Quality Surveillance Guideline to Nepal. An Environmental Health and Hygiene technical committee has been formed under MHP/ National Health Education, Information and Communication Center to work on WASH-related health issues and provide technical inputs on broader environmental health issues including WASH. The Primary Health Care Revitalization Division (a newly developed division at MoHP/Department of Health Services) has one environmental health section which is also responsible for WASH issues in urban areas. WASH has been discussed at the Health Joint Sector Review in February The subsequent aide memoire also included WASH aspects. In Malawi, as a result of the development of the National Sanitation Policy (NSP) in 2008, the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development (MoIWD) established a Sanitation and Hygiene Department in 2009 to lead the national sanitation initiatives. At the local level, the District Assemblies are responsible for ensuring that the policy is reflected in strategies for implementation through the Development Strategy and Improvement Programmes (DSIP). It is most likely that, while the Water Department will take the lead in water and possibly some subsidised implementation of sanitation activities, sanitation promotion and monitoring will be led by the Health Department. Although the NSP was adopted by the government in 2008, its official launch has been delayed several times and is not expected until The NSP will be supported by development partners under a SWAp for sanitation, bringing together government institutions and other relevant stakeholders. The SWAp is anticipated to improve coordination and participation in the formulation and implementation of sector policies, planning, and investment. Oversight will be provided by the National Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination Unit (NSHCU), chaired by the director of Preventive Health Services (PHS) of the MoH and with the director of MoIWD acting as the executive secretary. Successive governments in Sri Lanka have prioritised investment in health and education which has led, inter alia, to significant improvements in public health. Sanitation has 18